New vs old homes, what problems with you old vs brand new, they don't build them like they used to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, there are not a lot of good construction - "wow" type old homes in this area with m/any modern amenities. It is different than places in the north, where there are huge, detailed, sturdy old homes that are worth NOt knocking down.

Anyone I have heard complain about new construction can not afford it. You need to consider the source. For example, if someone uses the word McMansion, you can bet they are not only trashy, but do not see owning a new homes in their future because they do not generate that kind of income, nor does their family.

Again, consider your source!

The truth is that this area is littered with small cheap tract homes that were not intended to be permanent. They were built quickly and cheaply post world war 2. These homes are the ones in vienna, arlington, falls church etc...

[Anonymous]

"In 1945, American home builders faced an unprecedented challenge. Theirs had been a small-scale industry. The largest firms never built more than 20 houses at a time, and their construction methods were laborious. But with the war's end, several million buyers were eager to leave crowded and often substandard apartment living in cities for houses in the suburbs. They had the means to do so in the form of federally guaranteed mortgages.

The builders needed to erect houses quickly, and those houses had to be affordable and appealing to a whole new market, largely people who had never been able to afford a house before."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122900624_2.html

If anything the technology was much more primitive then the current builders needing to put up houses quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, there are not a lot of good construction - "wow" type old homes in this area with m/any modern amenities. It is different than places in the north, where there are huge, detailed, sturdy old homes that are worth NOt knocking down.

Anyone I have heard complain about new construction can not afford it. You need to consider the source. For example, if someone uses the word McMansion, you can bet they are not only trashy, but do not see owning a new homes in their future because they do not generate that kind of income, nor does their family.

Again, consider your source!

You are not familiar with the DC area, are you? There are a lot of amazing grand old homes well worth saving from Old Town all the way up to 16th Street Heights.

Also, you should educate yourself about the etymology of the term "McMansion."

[Anonymous]

I live in Glover Park, which was developed in the late 20s / early 30s. It seems to me that, while the builders didn't seem to have used the very best materials available at the time, they made those rowhouses fairly solidly and built to last, not forever, but for a long time. I doubt that a lot of old but post WWII construction will last as long as those pre-WWII homes. I think there was a structural break with WWII. Before that, and particularly during the Depression, you have lots of unemployed good workers and relatively plentiful good materials, hence the good quality. During WWII, good materials were much less abundant due to the war efforts, and bulders began to develop less stringent standards. Upon the return of the soldiers and subsequent baby boom -- and housing bubble that began in the second half of the 1940s, the unfortunate trend of using poor quality materials to quickly build crappy homes took hold.

I think there is a big difference in developments in the 20s and 30s, and developments in the 50s and 60s and later.

And, last but not least, while you can say that homes in a place like Glover Park are definitely not as charming as older homes in Capitol Hill or Georgetown or the like, they are markedly more charming that many of the cookie-cutter post-WWII developments -- and more charming than the McMansions of current times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, there are not a lot of good construction - "wow" type old homes in this area with m/any modern amenities. It is different than places in the north, where there are huge, detailed, sturdy old homes that are worth NOt knocking down.
Anyone I have heard complain about new construction can not afford it. You need to consider the source. For example, if someone uses the word McMansion, you can bet they are not only trashy, but do not see owning a new homes in their future because they do not generate that kind of income, nor does their family.
Again, consider your source!

You are not familiar with the DC area, are you? There are a lot of amazing grand old homes well worth saving from Old Town all the way up to 16th Street Heights.
Also, you should educate yourself about the etymology of the term "McMansion."

+1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this really an option for you, OP? There just aren't a lot of new homes here and usually it's priced far above the existing homes.

Not OP, but I'm curious about this because we're considering a renovation to our 1948 home and wondering if we should do a tear-down instead.

The problem is that if you renovate your home will still have the old year built date on it and that will cut into your value. For ROI and better options it is often better to rebuild from ground up with a new home. Think of it as patching a leak with duct tape vs removing the old pipe and installing a new one.

There are always issues w/ old homes because they were never designed to be permanent or were for the lower class people that could only buy low.

And here's a great example of why many nouveau riche home buyers won't look at an older home of quality and charm. To each his own . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Glover Park, which was developed in the late 20s / early 30s. It seems to me that, while the builders didn't seem to have used the very best materials available at the time, they made those rowhouses fairly solidly and built to last, not forever, but for a long time. I doubt that a lot of old but post WWII construction will last as long as those pre-WWII homes. I think there was a structural break with WWII. Before that, and particularly during the Depression, you have lots of unemployed good workers and relatively plentiful good materials, hence the good quality. During WWII, good materials were much less abundant due to the war efforts, and bulders began to develop less stringent standards. Upon the return of the soldiers and subsequent baby boom -- and housing bubble that began in the second half of the 1940s, the unfortunate trend of using poor quality materials to quickly build crappy homes took hold.

I think there is a big difference in developments in the 20s and 30s, and developments in the 50s and 60s and later.

And, last but not least, while you can say that homes in a place like Glover Park are definitely not as charming as older homes in Capitol Hill or Georgetown or the like, they are markedly more charming that many of the cookie-cutter post-WWII developments -- and more charming than the McMansions of current times.

I find most suburban neighborhoods and current McMansions to be far more appealing than Glover Park, an area that proves row houses can be cookie-cutter and bland. It's not the least bit charming and the homes are tiny.

[Anonymous]

For the last 20 years we've lived in older homes (circa 1915 and 1920). This was in a NYC suburb in a town comprised almost exclusively of old homes. We are now moving to the DC area and looking primarily at newer construction townhomes.

Older Home Likes: Solid construction, high ceilings, and great architectural details like crown molding, true divided light window panes, oak flooring.

Dislikes: Old wiring (especially old knob and tube), inefficient, uneven furnace and radiator heating, small closets, small bathrooms, and lack of family room/kitchen/living space "open flow."

After so many years of renovating an old home, adding a family room, deck, open kitchen, new bathrooms, my house is great. But I could never go through another old house rehab at this point in my life. It's time to move on to other things.

[Anonymous]

Notice all of the brick cookie cutter homes of arlington and mclean and bethesda, et al. Then you can tell me who is looking for what in the market and who is tearing down what. I really don't care what people are doing in areas where they would not consider sending their child to the local public school. This from a (gasp!) local.

[Anonymous]

New construction all the way! Had and lived in both. Way more upkeep and repairs in the old homes.

[Anonymous]

Our first home was a 30+ year old town house. All of the townhouses in our development had plumbing issues. The builder clearly had plumbing issues... Other than that, we loved it. We did replace the windows and the previous owner had redone the floors and the kitchen.

We then bought a tear-down in S. Arlington and built a brand new house (builder was NDI). We've been in the new house now for almost 3 years. We're really pretty happy with the construction. We've not had any issues yet. NDI was a very affordable builder. We didn't have a huge budget for upgrades, but ther baseline choices were pretty good.

We chose this route because my husband is a big guy and grew up in a big house and he just couldn't stand the small room sizes in Arlington houses. I loved a lot of the older homes we looked at and worried that we would miss some of the uniqueness and charm of an older home. We tried to integrate a few unique features into our new house, but it definitely does still feel just a little generic sometimes to me. Still, I think it was a good compromise for us.

I should say that we also tried to be sensitive to the neighborhood that we built in. Almost none of the houses on our street have a garage or, if they do, they only have a 1 car garage. We were very turned off by the idea of building a brand new house with a big honkin' 2-car garage right on the front of it. We chose a design that we thought would blend into the neighborhood, as much as possible. (not easy when you're building a new house on an old street!)

I do still dream of someday owning an older house again, but definitely one that's been updated!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Glover Park, which was developed in the late 20s / early 30s. It seems to me that, while the builders didn't seem to have used the very best materials available at the time, they made those rowhouses fairly solidly and built to last, not forever, but for a long time. I doubt that a lot of old but post WWII construction will last as long as those pre-WWII homes. I think there was a structural break with WWII. Before that, and particularly during the Depression, you have lots of unemployed good workers and relatively plentiful good materials, hence the good quality. During WWII, good materials were much less abundant due to the war efforts, and bulders began to develop less stringent standards. Upon the return of the soldiers and subsequent baby boom -- and housing bubble that began in the second half of the 1940s, the unfortunate trend of using poor quality materials to quickly build crappy homes took hold.

I think there is a big difference in developments in the 20s and 30s, and developments in the 50s and 60s and later.

And, last but not least, while you can say that homes in a place like Glover Park are definitely not as charming as older homes in Capitol Hill or Georgetown or the like, they are markedly more charming that many of the cookie-cutter post-WWII developments -- and more charming than the McMansions of current times.

I find most suburban neighborhoods and current McMansions to be far more appealing than Glover Park, an area that proves row houses can be cookie-cutter and bland. It's not the least bit charming and the homes are tiny.

WOW! You have great taste !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Glover Park, which was developed in the late 20s / early 30s. It seems to me that, while the builders didn't seem to have used the very best materials available at the time, they made those rowhouses fairly solidly and built to last, not forever, but for a long time. I doubt that a lot of old but post WWII construction will last as long as those pre-WWII homes. I think there was a structural break with WWII. Before that, and particularly during the Depression, you have lots of unemployed good workers and relatively plentiful good materials, hence the good quality. During WWII, good materials were much less abundant due to the war efforts, and bulders began to develop less stringent standards. Upon the return of the soldiers and subsequent baby boom -- and housing bubble that began in the second half of the 1940s, the unfortunate trend of using poor quality materials to quickly build crappy homes took hold.

I think there is a big difference in developments in the 20s and 30s, and developments in the 50s and 60s and later.

And, last but not least, while you can say that homes in a place like Glover Park are definitely not as charming as older homes in Capitol Hill or Georgetown or the like, they are markedly more charming that many of the cookie-cutter post-WWII developments -- and more charming than the McMansions of current times.

I find most suburban neighborhoods and current McMansions to be far more appealing than Glover Park, an area that proves row houses can be cookie-cutter and bland. It's not the least bit charming and the homes are tiny.

WOW! You have great taste !

Agree those homes are beautiful I really like the architectural peaks and roof lines on McMansion vs the midget rambler / cape code bull shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Glover Park, which was developed in the late 20s / early 30s. It seems to me that, while the builders didn't seem to have used the very best materials available at the time, they made those rowhouses fairly solidly and built to last, not forever, but for a long time. I doubt that a lot of old but post WWII construction will last as long as those pre-WWII homes. I think there was a structural break with WWII. Before that, and particularly during the Depression, you have lots of unemployed good workers and relatively plentiful good materials, hence the good quality. During WWII, good materials were much less abundant due to the war efforts, and bulders began to develop less stringent standards. Upon the return of the soldiers and subsequent baby boom -- and housing bubble that began in the second half of the 1940s, the unfortunate trend of using poor quality materials to quickly build crappy homes took hold.

I think there is a big difference in developments in the 20s and 30s, and developments in the 50s and 60s and later.

And, last but not least, while you can say that homes in a place like Glover Park are definitely not as charming as older homes in Capitol Hill or Georgetown or the like, they are markedly more charming that many of the cookie-cutter post-WWII developments -- and more charming than the McMansions of current times.

+1.
"Character" and "post-WWII old homes" are mutually exclusive words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Character" and "post-WWII old homes" are mutually exclusive words.

Codswallop. I like older houses, but there houses built after WWII that have character, too.